Reilly v. City of Atlantic City

Full title: ROBERT REILLY, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF ATLANTIC CITY; ROBERT FLIPPING…

Court: United States District Court, D. New Jersey

Date published: Apr 5, 2006

Civil Action No. 03-5975 (JEI), (Docket Nos. 30, 31, 33) (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2006)

Opinion

Civil Action No. 03-5975 (JEI), (Docket Nos. 30, 31, 33).

April 5, 2006

FRANK L. CORRADO, Esq., BARRY, CORRADO, GRASSI GIBSON, P.C., JOSEPH C. GRASSI, Esq., Wildwood, NJ, Counsel for Plaintiff Robert Reilly.

A. MICHAEL BARKER, Esq., BARKER, DOUGLASS SCOTT, P.C., Linwood, NJ, Counsel for Defendants Robert Flipping and Joseph McCullough.

Eric J. Riso, Esq., ZELLER BRYANT LLP, Cherry Hill, New Jersey, Counsel for Defendant Arthur Snellbaker.

DeCOTIIS, FITZPATRICK, COLE WISLER, LLP, Teaneck, New Jersey, Counsel for Defendant City of Atlantic City.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

JOSEPH IRENAS, District Judge

This matter having appeared before the Court on the Motions for Summary Judgment of Defendants McCullough and Flipping (Docket No. 30); Defendant Snellbaker (Docket No. 33); and Defendant The City of Atlantic City (Docket No. 31) (Defendants McCoullough, Flipping, Snellbaker and Atlantic City collectively "Defendants"), the Court having considered the submissions of the parties, and for the reasons set forth in an Opinion issued by this Court on even date herewith, and for good cause appearing;

IT IS on this 5th day of April, 2006,

ORDERED THAT:

(1) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment on the § 1985(3) claim (Count II of the Complaint) are hereby GRANTED.

(2) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment on the procedural due process claim against Flipping and Snellbaker in their official capacities, are hereby GRANTED on the ground that Flipping and Snellbaker are entitled to qualified immunity, to the extent the claim is based on the theory that the disciplinary decision was based upon evidence not considered by Hearing Officer Flower.

(3) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment on the procedural due process claim against Flipping and Snellbaker in their official capacities are hereby DENIED to the extent the claim is based upon the theory that someone other than the authorized decision maker made the final determination of discipline in Plaintiff's case.

(4) Defendants' Motions for Summary Judgment are hereby DENIED in all other respects.